2021 Georgia Code
Title 40 - Motor Vehicles and Traffic
Chapter 14 - Use of Speed Detection Devices and Red Light Cameras
Article 2 - Speed Detection Devices
§ 40-14-17. Laser Devices; Reliability and Admissibility of Evidence

Evidence of speed based on a speed detection device using the speed timing principle of laser which is of a model that has been approved by the Department of Public Safety shall be considered scientifically acceptable and reliable as a speed detection device and shall be admissible for all purposes in any court, judicial, or administrative proceedings in this state. A certified copy of the Department of Public Safety list of approved models of such laser devices shall be self-authenticating and shall be admissible for all purposes in any court, judicial, or administrative proceedings in this state.

(Code 1981, §40-14-17, enacted by Ga. L. 1999, p. 5, § 1.)

- For annual survey article discussing developments in the law of evidence, see 51 Mercer L. Rev. 279 (1999).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Admissibility of evidence.

- When the state introduced, without objection, a certified Department of Public Safety order listing the approved models of laser detection devices, and that list included the device used to measure the defendant's speed, the evidence of speed based on that device was considered to be scientifically acceptable and reliable. Van Nort v. State, 250 Ga. App. 7, 550 S.E.2d 111 (2001).

Although the state failed to provide a proper foundation for the introduction of laser detection evidence, other evidence at trial was sufficient to sustain the defendant's conviction for speeding because the police officer who observed the defendant's vehicle testified that the vehicle was traveling at an "obvious high rate of speed" and faster than the speed limit. In the Interest of J.D.S., 273 Ga. App. 576, 615 S.E.2d 627 (2005).

Trial court did not commit plain error in admitting the laser-speed-detection-device evidence because the state complied with O.C.G.A. § 40-14-17 by the arresting officer testifying as to certification to use the devices, that the police department had approved the devices for use, as well as having provided lengthy testimony regarding familiarity with calibrating the device and that the device used was calibrated at the start of the officer's shift. Lafavor v. State, 334 Ga. App. 125, 778 S.E.2d 377 (2015).

Laser-speed-detection-device evidence was not necessary because the officer's estimate that the defendant was exceeding the speed limit was sufficient to sustain the defendant's conviction. Lafavor v. State, 334 Ga. App. 125, 778 S.E.2d 377 (2015).

Cited in Brown v. State, 351 Ga. App. 808, 833 S.E.2d 302 (2019).